Stimulus Worked!

[Pliny]

But he changed the way employment was counted in the US. It is the same system Obama is using to count employment so when Shady cries because unemployment goes down and doesn't truly represent those who are unemployed it is like he is saying Reagan was an idiot for changing those rules. It is great everytime I read it.

Well, if Reagan was an idiot for changing it, and Obama insists on using it, what does that make him?

Besides did Reagan actually initiate the change you are talking about? Reagan did several things he wanted to do. One was cut taxes. He also wanted to cut spending but had trouble doing that because of a democrat controlled congress. He may have signed the legislation into effect but it may not have been his idea at all.

Reagan ended his Presidency being quite popular - hated by the fringe far left but the majority liked him. Obama is confrontational, partisan and ideologically driven - evidenced by his determination to pass his version of health care.

When Politicians get the idea that they aren't interested in being popular and are only interested in doing what is right it is time to be very careful. A politician insisting they are right to increase the size and scope of government is dangerous. They are only right when they know that government is not the be all and end all for resolving social ills which, when given the opportunity to resolve them, always results in their exacerbation and an inevitable war. A War on poverty, a war on drugs, a war on illiteracy, all these wars are costly, largely ineffective, and serve to increase the social bureaucracy of government. Certainly people demand government do something and are thus responsible for government growth. They haven't learned that government, once it creates bureaucracies, generally favours them and increases their budgets annually. Once a spot at the trough is earned it is not easily relinquished. Of course, the failures and inefficiencies of their mandate are generally blamed on a lack of resources and have nothing to do with the inadequacy of their programs.

[bloodyminded]

Reagan ended his Presidency being quite popular - hated by the fringe far left but the majority liked him. Obama is confrontational, partisan and ideologically driven - evidenced by his determination to pass his version of health care.

No, Reagan's great popularity is a bit of an enduring myth, no doubt perpetrated by his hagiographers.

He wasn't unpopular, true...he was very average. Very average.

Evidently, one third of the US electorate in the late '80's was "the fringe far left."

That's a big fringe.

As for Obama's supposed defects as you list them...well, we don't know what the future will bring, but Obama is MORE popular than Reagan was during his first two years. So that hurts your comparison a bit.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1832

[Shady]

How did Reagan change the rules? And why doesn't Obama change them back? He's suppose to be all about change, remember?

[maple_leafs182]

It doesn't matter who is president, nothing will change.

Both democrats and republicans work for the same team, the rich and powerful.

[Shady]

Both democrats and republicans work for the same team, the rich and powerful.

Intellectually laziness.

[Sir Bandelot]

If the stimulus worked, it only worked to line the pockets of bankers and investors. The banks are holding back the money from the consumers, who are the most important part of the economy. Without consumer spending, you are just playing games with numbers.

There are reports that the next housing bubble is about to burst. It does not appear that anything substantial was fixed, the same system with its flaws is still in place, so why shold anything have changed? Taxpayers should be upset that their money was taken to shore up failing banks and business, while the tycoons walk away from the debacle they created, complete with hefty bonuses.

All they have done for now to keep people quiet is to hide the real nunbers, and stall impending foreclosures for a while. But they will not be able to do this indefinitely.

New wave of foreclosures threatens market

"Some of the positive housing data may not be signaling a true turning point, as many servicers are holding back on foreclosures and the related houses are not yet being offered for sale," said Diane Westerback, a managing director at Standard & Poor's.

While banks repossessed fewer homes in February than a month earlier, borrowers continued to fall behind on their payments, adding to the inventory of properties headed toward foreclosure that have yet to be put on the market, said Daren Blomquist, RealtyTrac's spokesman. "Just looking at the numbers, we would expect there to be a bigger percentage of properties" repossessed by banks by now, he said.

The problem is now eating its way up the food chain-

Today's delinquent borrowers, for the most part, differ in a key regard from those who were caught up in the surge of defaults in 2008. That earlier wave, which precipitated the financial crisis, consisted largely of subprime borrowers who defaulted when their risky loans became unaffordable. The borrowers in trouble now are, for the most part, people who have better credit and safer loans and have become delinquent because they've lost their jobs or are dealing with other economic setbacks, economists said. More than 75 percent of the borrowers who are now seriously delinquent — meaning they have missed at least three monthly payments — have traditional prime loans, according to First American CoreLogic.

[GostHacked]

Intellectually laziness.

No, it's the truth. I pointed that out in the other thread about the anti-gay gay guy.Both sides play the game. It is not a matter of right against the left, dems against reps. It is government vs the citizens.

I will argue that the intellectually lazy are the ones who see things in the right/left spectrum.

[Sir Bandelot]

It is government vs the citizens.

It's those who approve the actions of the empire, and those who do not.

[Pliny]

It doesn't matter who is president, nothing will change.

Both democrats and republicans work for the same team, the rich and powerful.

Sadly, for the most part, this is true. Recognizing this is an indication that change can occur and I believe it is occurring. Both Democrats and Republicans are splitting on their views. The Democrats becoming more liberal and progressive and the Republicans more conservative and reactionary. This is a good thing. I think there should be a wider differentiation between the two.

What kind of change would you like to see that isn't occurring?

[Pliny]

No, Reagan's great popularity is a bit of an enduring myth, no doubt perpetrated by his hagiographers.

He wasn't unpopular, true...he was very average. Very average.

Evidently, one third of the US electorate in the late '80's was "the fringe far left."

That's a big fringe.

As for Obama's supposed defects as you list them...well, we don't know what the future will bring, but Obama is MORE popular than Reagan was during his first two years. So that hurts your comparison a bit.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1832

Obama's personal popularity is high. The left would never cloud their thinking by separating personality and policy. In their view Reagan was an evil-doer. The right is a little more fair I think. They disagree with Obama's policies but find him a personable individual. I find him very superficial myself.

Having said that, if Obama continues with his confrontational, partisan ways, and I don't see why he wouldn't, he will find himself personably less popular.

He won't win a second term. Reagan did.

[bloodyminded]

Obama's personal popularity is high. The left would never cloud their thinking by separating personality and policy. In their view Reagan was an evil-doer. The right is a little more fair I think. They disagree with Obama's policies but find him a personable individual. I find him very superficial myself.

Having said that, if Obama continues with his confrontational, partisan ways, and I don't see why he wouldn't, he will find himself personably less popular.

He won't win a second term. Reagan did.

I don't agree with all of this, but it's beside the point anyway. I was only showing you that your assertions were incorrect.

And, frankly, I think the reflexive admiration for Reagan DOES have a lot to do with conflation of personality and policy.

To the point where they think everybody loved Reagan...and that if one didn't love him, they must have been part of "the fringe left."

And that "the fringe left" is one third of the population.

In other words, your idea of a "fringe left" is larger than either the Republicans' or the Democrats' core constituencies, their bases.

[Shady]

and that if one didn't love him, they must have been part of "the fringe left."

I think that's mostly true. You're talking about a President who won a 49 state landslide. Basically, during that period of time, if you didn't like Reagan, you probably were of the fringe left.

[BubberMiley]

In fact, anyone who disagrees with Shady is part of the fringe left, so that probably passes the 50% mark.

[Pliny]

I don't agree with all of this, but it's beside the point anyway. I was only showing you that your assertions were incorrect.

They aren't incorrect. You are being particularly specific in time. Other times will show your assertions incorrect.

Obama may have a better personal approval than Reagan if you want to correlate their opening years. I believe, and it may or may not be true, that many people that find Obama personable are beginning to take a second look at the man.

And, frankly, I think the reflexive admiration for Reagan DOES have a lot to do with conflation of personality and policy.

Will there be the same refelxive admiration for Obama. Unlikely, in my opinion.

To the point where they think everybody loved Reagan...and that if one didn't love him, they must have been part of "the fringe left."

And that "the fringe left" is one third of the population.

In other words, your idea of a "fringe left" is larger than either the Republicans' or the Democrats' core constituencies, their bases.

My idea is that the fringe left is very small in America but very influential. They are influential because the MSM and the intellectuals in America are mostly very left wing.

Edited March 13, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

In fact, anyone who disagrees with Shady is part of the fringe left, so that probably passes the 50% mark.

Only in Canada you say? Pity!

[Jack Weber]

Proper and moderate protectionism works. CEOs are rarely in charge..usually it is some old back ground lawyer running a few shows at the same time..these ego maniacal legalists are not loyal to there base nation..and that is a problem..social economic Darwinists are a crazy bunch of cruel pricks...they do not heed the suffering of nations that gave them their start- nor are they thankful-prime example and I hate to sound like a repeating old fool - is the case of that disloyal sob...Conrad Black - he is not unique..he is typical.

Milton Friedman would be another example....

[bush_cheney2004]

Milton Friedman would be another example....

Another example of what? American born and educated economist?

[Jack Weber]

Take a feather pillow and cut it open atop of the CN Tower..those feathers flying are jobs that do not exist in North America..pumping money into the job market will never bring those jobs back- what took decades to destroy can not be repaired in a month...I wonder how much of this stimulus money will end up in India and China- our industrialist are habitualists and getting to break the habit of relentlessly seeking cheap labor is a hard habit to break.

Neoliberal economics,My man...Neoliberal economics...It wealth redistribution the free marketeering cons of the world love.Everything goes upward into the hands of the few!Welcome to the new indentured servitude!

Meet the new boss...Same as the old boss...

[Jack Weber]

Another example of what? American born and educated economist?

No...One of the strongest proponents of Free market,neoliberal economic theories.It is that economic ethos that has us in the mess we are in right now.That's not a shot at the US...It's a shot at what is turning out to be a disaster of theory for alot of people globally.

[bush_cheney2004]

No...One of the strongest proponents of Free market,neoliberal economic theories.It is that economic ethos that has us in the mess we are in right now.That's not a shot at the US...It's a shot at what is turning out to be a disaster of theory for alot of people globally.

What does that have to do with Oleg's screed for the likes of ex-pat Conrad Black? Friedman was and is still considered a world class economist for free markets, monetary theory, and regulation. His work is valuable if only as a counter to the Keynesian ideas that have also led to fiscal "disaster".

[Jack Weber]

What does that have to do with Oleg's screed for the likes of ex-pat Conrad Black? Friedman was and is still considered a world class economist for free markets, monetary theory, and regulation. His work is valuable if only as a counter to the Keynesian ideas that have also led to fiscal "disaster".

Okay....

[bloodyminded]

I think that's mostly true. You're talking about a President who won a 49 state landslide. Basically, during that period of time, if you didn't like Reagan, you probably were of the fringe left.

He had a 68% approval rating when he left office (the time-span under discussion from his supporter here.

This is not unusually high. Clinton's was actually a little higher.

Reagan's popularity was average.

And again: if he a 68% approval rating, and only the "fringe left" didn't support him...then (by your definition) 32% of America is "fringe left."

Which sort of shatters the very notion of "fringe," doesn't it?

[bloodyminded]

They aren't incorrect. You are being particularly specific in time. Other times will show your assertions incorrect.

?????

It was your specificity of time, Pliny. I was responding to your remark about Reagan's popularity at the end of his presidency.

And the fact is that his popularity was decent...but not incredibly high.

Slightly lower than Clinton's at the end of HIS presidency, in fact.

Obama may have a better personal approval than Reagan if you want to correlate their opening years. I believe, and it may or may not be true, that many people that find Obama personable are beginning to take a second look at the man.

They are. Anyone who remains worshipful (like the Reaganites, who are a cringing embarassment) after all this time is delusional; the type to be characteristically servile to power, obedient to fatherly political figures.

Will there be the same refelxive admiration for Obama. Unlikely, in my opinion.

I surely hope not. "Reflexive" is correct.

My idea is that the fringe left is very small in America but very influential. They are influential because the MSM and the intellectuals in America are mostly very left wing.

It's not so clear about intellectuals. As for the mainstream media, they're not very left wing at all.

Edited March 13, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Pliny]

?????

It was your specificity of time, Pliny. I was responding to your remark about Reagan's popularity at the end of his presidency.

And the fact is that his popularity was decent...but not incredibly high.

Slightly lower than Clinton's at the end of HIS presidency, in fact.

We were talking about Obama and his popularity being similar to Reagan's the first half of his first term. Reagan ended up quite popular - Obama won't.

They are. Anyone who remains worshipful (like the Reaganites, who are a cringing embarassment) after all this time is delusional; the type to be characteristically servile to power, obedient to fatherly political figures.

Quite a pronouncement!

It's not so clear about intellectuals. As for the mainstream media, they're not very left wing at all.

The MSM isn't left wing? Oh - I get it. You and I have different yardsticks. You think the media is quite centrist and perhaps even a bit right wing. The real left wing to you are people like Karl Marx, Mao tse tung, and the like. The centre to you is composed of what I would call moderate liberals.

Reagan was a centrist, in my view. Sarah Palin is only marginally right wing. The Republican party is marginally left wing and isn't sure it wants to go where Sarah Palin is. The Democrats are liberal.

[Pliny]

What does that have to do with Oleg's screed for the likes of ex-pat Conrad Black? Friedman was and is still considered a world class economist for free markets, monetary theory, and regulation. His work is valuable if only as a counter to the Keynesian ideas that have also led to fiscal "disaster".

Friedman was a monetarist and he had differences with Keynes but they had quite a bit in common when it came to macro-engineering an economy. I think Friedman in his later years leaned more towards a free market but he gave us such things as the withholding payroll tax and favoured a fiat currency over the gold standard.

Keynes of course is the darling of governments and his economic theory is what is held in practice by governments world wide. It gives them the greatest amount of power.